Editorial: Grassley's court maneuver threatens his legacy, reputation

In late February, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley was taking increasing fire for his refusal to hold hearings to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He dismissed questions about the impact the public uproar might have on his legacy.

“Do you think I spend my day wondering about how Chuck Grassley will go down in history?” Grassley asked reporters. “I don’t care if I ever go down in history. I’m here to do a job and how the history books treat me — my name will probably never be mentioned in the history books.”

A few days before, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had accused Grassley of having allowed Republican leaders to “annex the Judiciary Committee” to pursue their agenda of obstructionism and gridlock.

“Is this the legacy he wants?” Reid said. “Is this how he wants his committee work remembered — as a chairman who refused his duty and instead allowed the Republican leader to ride roughshod over the Judiciary Committee’s storied history?”

Grassley’s position is that the Supreme Court nominees of lame-duck presidents aren’t deserving of consideration in an election year. Better to wait until after the presidential election, he says, so the people can have their say on the matter.

Setting aside, just for the moment, the merits of that argument, the legacy question raised by Reid is valid. It’s also a question that causes considerable worry among Grassley’s most ardent supporters here in Iowa.

It’s not fair, but politicians who move fleetingly in and out of the national consciousness are often defined by a single event that captures the public’s attention and overshadows everything that came before. Grassley is a household name in Iowa, but the Supreme Court fight has catapulted him into the national spotlight. Many Americans know only one thing about Chuck Grassley: He’s the man who is blocking the president’s efforts to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Grassley’s staff has said the Supreme Court controversy is “clearly not a defining issue,” but that claim seems to ignore reality.

It has been three months since Grassley first declared that he wouldn’t hold hearings for any Supreme Court nominee put forward by Obama, and the public outcry shows no signs of tapering off. The fact that Grassley is now seeking election to a seventh term in the Senate will only help ensure the issue remains front and center in the public’s mind throughout 2016.

After 57 years in elected office and countless legislative accomplishments at both the state and federal level, Grassley seems destined to be remembered largely for this single, petulant act of politically motivated obstructionism.

At this point, he is heavily favored to win re-election in November, so if retaining his job is his only real concern, the senator has little to worry about. But if Grassley, now 82 years old, wants to be remembered as a civic-minded public servant rather than a career politician, he’s in serious trouble.

By announcing, within hours of Scalia’s death, his intent to prevent any Obama nominee from getting a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley did more than stake out a controversial position on an issue. He called into question his own integrity and he created the appearance, at least, that he was putting politics ahead of the national interest.

That’s not just the assessment of liberal Democrats, some of whom have expressed grudging respect for the senator over the years. Many Republicans are also deeply troubled by Grassley’s actions.

Last week, a CNN poll found that 67 percent of Americans favored Senate hearings on the Garland nomination. Only 28 percent were opposed to hearings. Similar numbers were reported in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in mid-April. What’s more, both polls show that public support for confirmation hearings is rapidly growing.

Grassley hasn’t helped his cause with his claim that by blocking any Obama nominee to the court, he is simply “letting the people have their say” on the matter this November.

“Not very often do the people have a chance to express the view on, ‘Do you want a very liberal person put on the court or a conservative person put on the court?’” Grassley says.

Not very often? More like never. Supreme Court justices aren’t selected through any sort of popular vote — and for good reason. They’re not politicians, and issues of constitutional rights are best not determined on Election Day.

And that’s the fundamental and inescapable problem with Grassley’s contrived “let the people speak” rationale for refusing to hold hearings. It’s built on a framework of contradictory assumptions that conflict with past practice and the U.S. Constitution, and aren’t even grounded in reality:

First, there’s the notion that the general public — not just the president and the Senate — ought to have some say in selecting Supreme Court justices via the November presidential election. It’s bizarre that Grassley, who often complains the court is “too politicized” and doesn’t adhere to strict readings of the Constitution, would even suggest this.

Second, there’s the assumption that presidential elections are single-issue referendums as to what sort of justices belong on the high court. Even now, with Scalia’s seat publicly held hostage by Grassley, voters say they’re far more concerned with a dozen other domestic and foreign issues.

And finally there’s Grassley’s inexplicable assertion that while we can’t rely on the last two presidential elections to determine the will of the people, we will be able to rely on the next one.

Over the course of six terms in the U.S. Senate, three terms in the U.S. House, and 16 years in the Iowa Legislature, Grassley cultivated a reputation for being a fair-minded, hard-working, bipartisan lawmaker.

Grassley is wrong when he says his name “will probably never be mentioned in the history books.” But given the context in which his name is now most likely to be mentioned, he may soon wish he was right.